Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [OT] Good News

Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] Good News
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 17:47:29 -0400
But lets work backwards to the actual resolution requirements as opposed to arguing that A is better than B. B is fine if it meets or exceed the requirements.

Let's start with an 8x10 print as the output target. Many places will produce this print at 250dpi. 300 dpi on 8x10 would be luxurious (except for Moose) 250 dpi over 8" is a total of 2000 lines. That needs to be extracted from a negative that's 57mm square. The bottom line is that the resolution requirement from the negative is only 35 lines/mm. Who cares if a dedicated film scanner can do much better than that?

ps: The actual resolution on the film is likely to be 30 lines/mm or even less unless the camera was on a tripod. Yes, actual resolution of old, hand held film images is actually rather poor. 40 lines/mm is considered very good.

Chuck Norcutt


On 5/4/2015 9:33 PM, John Hudson wrote:
CH .............. are you suggesting that scanning colour negatives with
a flat bed scanner is preferable to using a dedicated film scanner? My
Nikon Super Coolscan 900 ED has always done sterling service with 35mm
b/w and colour, both negs and slides, and 6x7 m/f negatives and I have a
difficult time believing that a flat bed scanner could do better.


jh

On 5/4/2015 9:09 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
All old negatives have certain amount of color fading, it may not easy
to restore the color with optical printing process. Scanning the negs
with a good flatbed is the best way, my Epson 4870 do a fine job with
MF negatives.

http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/1994-01_10s.jpg (Bronica, SQA with 645
back, 150mm?).

Scaning color negs with digital camera is difficult to get the color
right. After hundreds of scans I still prefer to use scanner.

C.H.Ling

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>


Forget all the nonsense about scanning and the kludgy efforts to do
so. It
will look like crap.  Get real optical RA-4 color prints made from the
negs.  Scan the prints on a flatbed if you must but at least get real
(optical / RA4) prints made. Otherwise, the quality will never be
there,
short of a drum scan.

I absolutely agree! Have glossy prints made, though.

It is probably Kodak Portra 400 film. This film produced very nice
skintones, but usually needed to be overexposed a tiny bit. that would
help bring skintones up and provide good background separation, what
it means is that the negatives are a little more dense in the
highlights than what most scanners or digitizing processes can deal
with. Skintones will all turn Pepto-Bismo pink as a result. If he was
an old-timer, he was likely still shooting it like he shot Vericolor,
and derated the film by up to a full stop.

If you do decide to digitize them yourself, do it with a good scanner
with transparancy adaptor. But I think you are much better served if
you have a lab process them to small prints and even have them do the
scanning themselves.

I really doubt that the photographer would have taken all that many
pictures. Most of us in that era topped out at 10 rolls of film.


--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz